https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208866 Section 61(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act is construed as a discretionary penalty provision: the word "may" means penalty is not mandatory, and the discretion extends not only to whether penalty should be imposed but also to its quantum. The dealer's explanation must be considered after a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and mandatory-penalty authorities were distinguished because they used different statutory language. The interpretive rule favouring the assessee where two views are possible supported this reading. On the stated facts, the Tribunal found the filing delay was not deliberate and gave reasons for reducing the penalty, so the reduction was upheld. en-us Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208866 Section 61(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act is construed as a discretionary penalty provision: the word "may" means penalty is not mandatory, and the discretion extends not only to whether penalty should be imposed but also to its quantum. The dealer's explanation must be considered after a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and mandatory-penalty authorities were distinguished because they used different statutory language. The interpretive rule favouring the assessee where two views are possible supported this reading. On the stated facts, the Tribunal found the filing delay was not deliberate and gave reasons for reducing the penalty, so the reduction was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208866